Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.35 seconds)
Rasmilaben R Thakker vs Indext/C Industrial Extension Cottage on 5 August, 2022 cites

K.V.Anil Mithra . vs Sree Sankaracharya Univ.Of Sanskrit ... on 27 October, 2021

I found that in the earlier judgment, in the case of K.V. Anil Mithra (supra), the facts are also different where the services of the petitioners were initially by way of appointment for the period of 1994-95 under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, and they have given status of regular employees by order date 07.05.1996, they were subsequently deregularized by order dated 24.03.1997, and therefore, the facts of that case is also different from the facts of the present case, in the facts of the present case, it is admitted position that the petitioner herself has signed the consent letter at Exh.21, which is admittedly for the contractual appointment for a period of one year only Page 14 of 16 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 08 20:32:35 IST 2022 C/SCA/12240/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022 and when there is specific agreement between the parties for contractual appointment and when there is specific condition provided in such and the petitioner is appointed for the limited period, then the petitioner cannot claim for any benefit by contending that the respondent establishment of public authority has committed breach of Section 25 (F) or any other provisions of I.D. Act and more particularly, when the is specific condition prescribed in that letter at Exh.20 and also consent given at Exh.21 documents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 47 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Virendraprasad Ramnarayan Shukla vs Services Auto Petrol Pump on 9 September, 2021

"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious." Page 13 of 16 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 08 20:32:35 IST 2022 C/SCA/12240/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022 5.3 Learned advocate Mr. Vasavada has also relied on the judgment in the case of Virandra Ramnarayan Shukla (supra), in that case it is clearly established that the workman has worked for a period of 240 days in a calendar year and from the depositions of both the sides and from the written statement also, I was inferred in that case that workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Moreover, in that case, the workman was working as a Pump Operator with the respondent institute since last 10 years and therefore, the facts of that case is very different from the facts of the present case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - A P Thaker - Full Document

Court In The Case Of Secretary, State Of ... vs . Uma on 9 April, 2015

5.2 I found that the learned Labour Court has given detailed reasons while recording findings in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court. It is also pertinent to note that as per letter produced at Exh.20, the petitioner is appointed for one year on fixed salary of Rs.2,800/- per month vide letter dated 01.04.1998, and therefore, such appointment is made for a period of one year and it is a contractual appointment, the signature, which is put on the said document at Exh.20 by the present petitioner, is not disputed by petitioner workman. It is also found from Page 9 of 16 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 08 20:32:35 IST 2022 C/SCA/12240/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022 the record that signature of consent letter at Exh.21 is proved though it is disputed by the petitioner in cross- examination, and therefore, when the petitioner has accepted the terms for the appointment on the contract basis then now, she cannot agitate that the respondent institution had to consider her for continuation in service on the basis of documents which is executed for the purpose of contractual appointment. It is further revealed that the respondent - institution is run by the grant received from the Gujarat Government and as an institute which is following policies of the Gujarat Government and it is also found from the record from the Resolution of the Gujarat Government at Exh.30, by which it clearly establishes that after following necessary procedure and after getting necessary sanction from the Government, the posts of the employees/workmen can be filled up by the institute. It further transpires from the record that there is no advertisement published in the newspaper before the appointment made of the petitioner in the year 1994, and there is appointment order given to the present petitioner in the year 1994 for one year which is coming out from the pleadings and the cross- examination of the present petitioner before the learned Labour Court. It also transpires from the record that as Page 10 of 16 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 08 20:32:35 IST 2022 C/SCA/12240/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022 per the documentary evidence produced by the workman at Exh.36, it clearly indicates the the present petitioner workman was on the basis of fix pay. It also transpires from the record that the learned Labour Court has rightly considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), whereby the Honb'le Apex Court held that the backdoor entries are not permissible without following due procedure and further held that the temporary employee, who is appointed by the oral order, cannot get the benefit like permanent employees of the establishment.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 1 - Cited by 2142 - Full Document
1   2 Next